Indeed, it only made sense when you realized she was inadvertently revealing how deeply she and other Harperites mistrust the public at large — and how much they fear entrusting the vote to those beyond the Harper base.

Encouraging the vast horde of Canadians to vote is the last thing they want. Frum’s strange remarks captured the deeply anti-democratic tendencies of the Harper Conservatives.

Of course, the intense scrutiny surrounding Stephen Harper’s new election bill has brought these anti-democratic tendencies into sharp relief, as a number of knowledgeable individuals have noted that the bill likely would suppress voting by more than 100,000 marginalized people, while doing little to clamp down on the really serious problem of dirty election tricks witnessed in the robocall scandal.

But to get an overview of the anti-democratic arc of this government, it is useful to view this new attempt to rig the election rules alongside the government’s other mainstay of anti-democratic action — namely, its attempt to suppress dissent.

And the scope of the Harper government’s net of tax audit intimidation may be bigger than previously suspected.

I happened to learn last week that the United Church, a bedrock Canadian institution, has been subject to some intense auditing.

I heard this from members of Toronto’s Trinity St. Paul’s United Church congregation, including opera singer Mary Lou Fallis, a recipient of the Order of Canada. Fallis says that participants at a recent church event defending public health care were quietly warned not to say anything directly critical of the Harper government due to fears about the audit.

This is Canada?

It used to be that members of patrician families occupied their time with harmless, high-society events. Now, it seems, they’re drawn to suppressing democracy.

The United Church, with more than 3,000 congregations across the country, has a long tradition of social justice advocacy and taking stands that would annoy the Harper government — such as supporting First Nations in their opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and opposing Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.

Using tax audits to intimidate opponents is, of course, reminiscent of Richard Nixon, who secretly tried to get the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to carry out harassing audits of political enemies.

Harper appears to have essentially done the same thing — without the secrecy. In 2012, the Harper government announced it was allocating an extra $8 million to audit charities to ensure they were following the rules governing political advocacy. It also accused some environmentalists of being “extremists” funded by “foreign money,” and it revised anti-terrorism legislation to add environmental groups as a potential threat.

Accused of targeting the government’s political enemies, then-finance minister Jim Flaherty replied: “There are some terrorist organizations, there are some organized crime organizations, that launder money through charities and that make donations to charities.”

Of course, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has the legitimate authority to conduct audits to ensure groups are following Canadian tax law.

But the large number of audits of leading environmental groups — including the David Suzuki Foundation, West Coast Environmental Law and the Pembina Foundation — has led to suspicions the Harper government is using the audits to harass and intimidate some of its most effective critics.

In the United Church case, church financial officer Erik Mathiesen is careful not to make accusations, suggesting that an audit may have been “due.” But he acknowledges that there has been a “surge in audit activity,” with three different branches of CRA suddenly going after the church in the same time period.

That could be random. Or, as Ian Fleming noted in the 60s Bond classic Goldfinger, “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.”

I’ve always found it odd when commentators use the word “populist” to describe the Harper Conservatives. While they try to make their policies appear beneficial to working class voters, Harper and his team are deeply elitist.

It’s striking that some of the leading figures pushing the government’s anti-democratic agenda are unelected, Harper-appointed senators from prominent, wealthy families who use the gilded Upper Chamber as a pulpit for trashing the democratic rights of less privileged citizens.

And now we have Linda Frum — also from a wealthy, prominent family and appointed to the Senate after her brother played a pivotal role in the unite-the-right movement that brought Harper to power — accusing the chief electoral officer of a “conflict of interest” for promoting a program encouraging youth to vote.

It used to be that members of patrician families occupied their time with harmless, high-society events. Now, it seems, they’re drawn to suppressing democracy.

Whatever happened to the debutante ball?

Winner of a National Newspaper Award, Linda McQuaig has been a reporter for the Globe and Mail, a columnist for the National Post and the Toronto Star. She was the New Democrat candidate in Toronto Centre in 2013. She is the author of seven controversial best-sellers, including Shooting the Hippo: Death by Deficit and other Canadian Myths and It’s the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet. Her most recent book (co-written with Neil Brooks) is The Trouble with Billionaires: How the Super-Rich Hijacked the World, and How We Can Take It Back.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

You can show up at the polls with a birth certificate (or citizenship card), SIN card, Employer ID card, Student card, hospital/medical card, health card, Library card, debit card, credit card, and your passport, and still be denied the right to vote. What’s wrong with this picture?

Try this exercise. If you have a driver’s licence, take it out of your wallet, (and motor vehicle registration). Could you provide enough ID to vote? What authorized ID do you have that confirms your current address?

Ms. Frum’s main point (that election’s Canada is involved in a “conflict of interest” because of its mandate to educate ALL citizens about parliamentary processes and the right to vote) unfortunately reveals a glimpse into the black hole that is the ethical foundation of the Harper® government and apparently the CPC. She either has no knowledge of the true meaning of the phrase (Wikipedia could allay this almost as quickly as her initial thoughtless tweet) or has actively chosen to denigrate a government department that works in a non-partisan manner for ALL Canadians. If she has proof that Elections Canada does act in conflict, she should come forward with the evidence.

Her outburst follows in the footsteps of other members of this government who have destructively attacked or impugned various independent monitoring bodies who did not agree with their plans. The list is long and odious and I fear that much damage to crucial government oversight has already been done by this gang, yet cannot be appreciated due to the opaqueness of CPC reporting. Is it not FINALLY time to pull the plug on this mess? Canada deserves better!

Frum raised some very valid points. It’s undemocratic for Elections Canada to target get-out-the-vote campaigns for certain demographics, that just “coincidentally” happen to not vote Conservative. If they have a vested interest in having a higher vote turnout, it immediately creates a conflict with the roll of ensuring a fair election.

Nowhere in Elections Canada’s mandate does it include anything about increasing voter turnout. This is a mission they seem to have created for themselves out of thin air.

If anything is undemocratic, it’s a failed partisan candidate accusing a sitting Senator of being undemocratic for asking the questions that her job requires.

Only a Conservative would think that Elections Canada should not attempt to encourage more active voter participation in a democratic election. Strengthening citizenship education in schools and adult education will result – as in the Nordic nations – with 80% plus voter turn-outs , not the voter suppression the Conservatives are fostering.
So it is undemocratic for an active citizen who has the democratic right – if she so chooses – to stand in a democratic election, and later to ask pertinent questions of an unelected, partisan Senate appointee from the corporate-political elites!
Aristotle warned that democracy would devolve into plutocracy – sadly, he appears to be right.

An easier way to solve this problem would be to make voting mandatory. Thus, it would take this issue away from EC and it would also kill the perception that the CPC are trying to engage in voter suppression. As an extra perk it would also strengthen our democracy.

One of the Senate presenters explained how popular the Elections Canada multi language civics programs are — these are not designed to “get-out-the-vote” but to teach new Canadians about their new home.

“18. (1) The Chief Electoral Officer may implement public education and information programs to make the electoral process better known to the public, particularly to those persons and groups most likely to experience difficulties in exercising their democratic rights.
Marginal note:Communication with the public

(2) The Chief Electoral Officer may, using any media or other means that he or she considers appropriate, provide the public, both inside and outside Canada, with information relating to Canada’s electoral process, the democratic right to vote and how to be a candidate.
Marginal note:Information outside Canada

(3) The Chief Electoral Officer may establish programs to disseminate information outside Canada concerning how to vote under Part 11.”

Ms. Frum’s main point (that election’s Canada is involved in a “conflict of interest” because of its mandate to educate ALL citizens about parliamentary processes and the right to vote) unfortunately reveals a glimpse into the black hole that is the ethical foundation of the Harper® government and apparently the CPC. She either has no knowledge of the true meaning of the phrase (Wikipedia could allay this almost as quickly as her initial thoughtless tweet) or has actively chosen to denigrate a government department that works in a non-partisan manner for ALL Canadians. If she has proof that Elections Canada does act in conflict, she should come forward with the evidence.

Her outburst follows in the footsteps of other members of this government who have destructively attacked or impugned various independent monitoring bodies who did not agree with their plans. The list is long and odious and I fear that much damage to crucial government oversight has already been done by this gang, yet cannot be appreciated due to the opaqueness of CPC reporting. Is it not FINALLY time to pull the plug on this mess? Canada deserves better!

A dictator has to suppress anyone who disagrees with him. That is the mark of a dictator. And then this poor little man whines at a funeral that he can’t get even his friends to like him! Maybe he should look in the mirror and check all his secrecy and control.

The Conservatives are copying the Republican playbook…if you can’t win fair and square then change the rules so it discourages or reduces the value of that part of the population that doesn’t support you by (1) gerrymandering – redraw the boundaries so it only includes neighbourhoods that you can win (2) suppress the votes of those who do not support your values (the young, minority, poor) in the guise of voter fraud (3) discourage those who work from voting by change the voting windows so they can’t get to polling stations during convenient hours or must endure long lines (4) use dirty tricks like contacting voters with the wrong voting information (5) cut the funding to the Elections oversight body and muzzle them from telling voters about the importance of their democratic right to vote, which many have died in several World Wars to maintain (6) outright lie about anything just to get it in the headlines. Like how you personally witnessed thousands of example of voter fraud and then later recant by saying “I mispoke…I have no examples and didn’t see any voter fraud”.

Interesting that J.S. Woodsworth, the first leader of the CCF and a Methodist minister, was charged with sedition during the Winnipeg General Strike for quoting two passages from Isaiah calling for social justice.
Jews, Christians and Muslims have no choice but to speak out as did the old testament prophets when the elites of their day “ground the faces of the poor”, and ignored the cries of the poor, widows and the fatherless.
Christians have no choice but to not only speak out for the hungry and ill-clothed and ill-housed but also to actively help them: all actions that the Harper government would consider “political” – and hence not voluntary. LOL
What hypocrites they are.

quote”Using tax audits to intimidate opponents is, of course, reminiscent of Richard Nixon, ” unquote. No, that tactic is directly reminiscent of what the US IRS has blatantly and massively used against right wing groups under the Obama administration. But you can’t get the Nixon word in there if you acknowledge that exponentially greater and more recent event.

VANCOUVER SUN APRIL 16, 2014
“The federal Conservative government has been for the last four weeks fighting a rising tide of opposition to Bill C-23, otherwise known as the Fair Elections Act.

Curiously though, as the number of dissenters has grown, their voices have been dismissed, not with reasoned arguments, but in attacks on the critics themselves.

These critics now include many people, from former auditor general Sheila Fraser to chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand to a parade of academics, politicians and pundits. You’re either with us, the Conservatives have told them, or you’re a self-styled agitator, liberal-media type, power-hungry bureaucrat.

You’re either with us or you are clearly not an “ordinary Canadian.”

It’s an emotional tactic that wore thin long ago, about the time former Justice Minister Vic Toews failed to push his Internet surveillance bill through with a “you’re either with us or you’re with the child pornographers.”

As editorial board editors in the Postmedia company, we have today united to publish a collection of excerpts about Bill C-23 from our newsrooms across the country. We hope and believe that,if the newspapers in Canada’s major cities speak on a single day on this single issue, we can show all Canadians how critical this issue is, and more important, advocate for change.

Some may say we’re not one of them. We are.

Some may say we don’t speak for “ordinary Canadians.” We do.

This is no longer a matter of partisan politics, nor should it ever have been about partisan politics. It’s a matter of ensuring fair elections for the future, for all Canadians.

I wonder how many Canadians will be able to vote if they follow the advice in this editorial.

Nanaimo Daily News. Editorial: Elections Act sounds like it could be fair:

“Another major tenet the Fair Elections Act demands is that people who turn out to vote must bring with them one of 39 different pieces of possible identification. It doesn’t have to be photo ID. It can be something as simple as a hydro or cell bill with your name on it, proving you live at the address that matches the one on the official voters list.”

HillTimes: “Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand has pointed out during committee testimony that many approved ID documents, such as utility bills with addresses, are not available to hundreds of thousands of voters, while others, such as student cards or aboriginal status cards, might have photo but not an addresses.

The only single ID documents that are acceptable to prove identity and address are government issued identification, such as or similar to driver’s licences with a photo and address or a health card with photo and address.”

IPolitics “The Fair Elections Act seeks to require voters to provide either a government ID with their photograph and address on it, a driver’s license for example, or two of 39 pieces of acceptable forms of identification, one of which must include the voter’s current residence.
But with the rise in online billing, critics have argued that many voters will have a hard time producing a physical bill or other document with their current address. ”

You need two pieces of ID, both of which must have your name and one of which must also have your address. Elections Canada has a list of 39 different kinds of ID that are acceptable. A Senate committee has suggested the new bill be amended to allow electronic versions of utility bills as ID rather than the original hard copies currently required.

“Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Government): I would like to thank Senator Cordy for her question, which I believe I have already answered.
There is now a pre-study being done of Bill C-23, which requires voters to show one of 39 pieces of ID to identify themselves and validate their address. Identifying oneself is obviously an essential condition for exercising the right to vote.
In any electoral reform process, it is important to maintain public confidence in the law and the results. Therefore, we must ensure that the legislative provisions encourage people to exercise their right to vote and that public confidence in the results is also protected.
Any reasonable person who wants to exercise their right to vote can certainly provide one of the 39 pieces of ID or one of the proofs of address listed in the bill. I have already read them out. I do not know if you would like me to repeat them, but I imagine you do not. I have children in university who sometimes move. There is a multitude of documents they can use as proof of their address.”

“I don’t think a lot of people who have this knee-jerk reaction have actually read the bill,” LeBreton said.

As a senior herself, she added: “I’m insulted when people say, ‘Oh, the poor seniors won’t be able to vote.’ Like you tell me one senior in this country that can’t come up with one of 39 pieces of identification to prove who they are. I mean, it’s an insult.”

Author

Winner of a National Newspaper Award, Linda McQuaig has been a reporter for the Globe and Mail, a columnist for the National Post and the Toronto Star, and author of seven controversial best-sellers, including Shooting the Hippo: Death by Deficit and other Canadian Myths and It’s the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet. Her most recent book (co-written with Neil Brooks) is The Trouble with Billionaires: How the Super-Rich Hijacked the World, and How We Can Take It Back. Conrad Black once suggested on CBC Radio that McQuaig should be horsewhipped.